Bontesla:When I said, "So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know", I only needed to deduce that from your statement that x number of people managed not to shoot anyone today. Your argument only makes sense if you establish an acceptable threshold of unnecessary gun violence. If you don't think any number of unnecessary shootings are acceptable then that would be a really odd statement for you to make.

To try and legislate to a 100% safety level is impossible and probably shouldn't be restricted. I say that not to be snarky, but noting that a 100% safety level isn't possible anywhere and point out that we regularly accept levels below that. Vehicles, pools, knives, etc aren't 100% safe. Hell - hammers aren't 100% safe. Trying to use that as your level does nothing more than set an impossible standard that paves the way for continual legislation and failed results - which leads to more and more restrictions upon the populace.

Further - law abiding gun owners also snap. Here's the thing about law-abiding gun owners: they can be law-abiding every single day for fifty years and then one day decide to kill everyone in sight. So saying that just because you've previously obeyed all laws and have not shot anyone yet doesn't mean that you'll continue to obey all laws and will not shoot anyone in the future. You may be pretty confident in your sanity but I'm not. It's nothing personal but statistically speaking - I'm going to know people who die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. People in your circle will also know someone who will either die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. It's entirely likely that you know who will be that shooter and it's also entirely likely that you'd be surprised at who the shooter is.

Rarely enough that attempting to legislate against it will result in nothing more than undue restrictions upon all other law abiding folks. Secondly, whether or not your comfortable with the sanity of the average firearm owner is irrelevant. Statistically speaking, that's bullshiat. In the United States, I believe the current homicide rate is hovering around 4/100,000. So unless you regularly hang out with 25K people/year, it's not bloody likely. Now, if you hang out in crime-infested neighborhoods, have gang bangers or drug dealers for friends, and so forth, then it becomes much more likely. However, still - bullshiat. Knowing someone from the news doesn't count as actually knowing them.

I'm not arguing that guns should be banned. I'm saying that one's hobby should not put everyone else in society at risk. Society can regulate high risk behavior. It's why many states have regulated street racing, we have hunting seasons, and you can be arrested for driving drunk. We haven't banned street racing - merely designated areas in which it can be carried out and specified the conditions in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned duck hunting - merely created a season and designated zones in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned alcohol - merely stipulated that you cannot both drink and drive. Likewise - we shouldn't ban guns. We should, however, enact common sense regulations that help create a safer society. These common sense regulations should also be accompanied by other laws because regulating the tool, alone, will be insufficient.

Well, you've used some very bad analogies there. Street racing is illegal as it's dangerous. Murder is illegal because it's dangerous. Randomly discharging your firearm in public places is illegal because it's dangerous - however, defending yourself isn't. The fact is that all "bad" behaviors with firearms (the ones that actually hurt someone else) are illegal. By your examples, we're set - from a legal perspective.

david_gaithersburg:WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link

You are living under three false impressions:

1. You are NOT the protector of American Freedom2. You will NOT gain the support of the American people when you act.3. You would get your collective asses kicked so hard by the FBI or the DoD. You have no chance against them.

While we are debating taking guns away from crazy people, we should include taking them away from stupid people. Take your guns to your local police force and turn them in. We would all feel safer if you did.

Scerpes:Infernalist: You'd be surprised what you can kill someone with. That doesn't make any of them equivalent to tools designed solely and purely with death in mind. Handguns have NO other purpose except to exert the fear of death or deal death.

If you loan someone a gun, then yeah, you ARE responsible for what they do with the tool of death that you gave them.

Equally responsible, at that.

Then it is absolutely the same for cars, hammers, chain saws, and any other deadly or dangerous weapon. Whether you like it or not.

If I loan someone my hammer, a tool of construction and creation, then I can safely assume that he's meaning to use it for some sort of construction.

If I loan someone my car, a tool of transportation, then I can safely assume that he's needing it to drive somewhere.

If I loan someone my gun, a tool of death and intimidation, then I can assume that he's intending to threaten someone or kill someone.

cameroncrazy1984:Mrbogey: cameroncrazy1984: Infernalist: Lanza didn't buy his guns. He stole them. Are you suggesting that we violate the civil rights of a potential gun owner because he has a son with autism? I'm shocked at you, sirrah. Shocked, I sa

He didn't steal them. They were in his mother's house. His mother taught him how to use them.

You dont realize how dumb that line is. That's a shame.

You don't know that when you call other people dumb, you should probably use contractions properly.

Missing an apostrophe makes me a sloppy typist. Expressing a dumb idea... well we know what that makes you.

david_gaithersburg:verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link

Rense.com? PFFTTAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

.Learn to use Google if you must read the same story from NYT or Mother Jones.

Mr. Eugenides:chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: czei: I get it: gun violence is caused by liberals working for Obama has part of a grand conspiracy to take away our guns?

I don't know that they're working for Obama or are working to take away our guns, but yeah, I doubt any of the recent mass shooters were registered as Republicans. In fact, a fair number of them (Side show bob and Loughner) seem to have been Democratic activists of sorts.

right, the kid's mother was a survivalist. How many survivalists do you think are Democrats? The kid grew up in a Republican household.

The idea that these maniacs are working to take away your guns is incredibly stupid. They do not have a political agenda, they are pissed and want to take it out on people.

You should go find a mental health professional and have a nice long talk. They cannot cure stupid, but they can help with the crazy.

Interesting; you make some fatuous leaps and then insult me without providing a shred of corroboration for your assertions. But somehow you're actually proud of your skill at debate aren't you?

this is not a debate, you moron. You are either crazy or stupid, possibly and more likely you are both, You post is proof of it.

See, the difference there is that the NYC gun ban has, you know, actual repercussions and teeth. The other two don't. But it's interesting that you have no idea why NYC gun crime has gone down.

I had heard that violent crime in NYC was way up. You have any citations?

<iViolent in has been dropping since 1990. In 2009, there were 471 homicides, the lowest number since at least 1963 when reliable statistics were first kept.

Source

I'd like to know were you heard violent crime was way up. A two-second google search only comes up with stories saying it's down.

Thanks for the citation. Interesting that it says: The city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic and - controversially - the legalization of abortion approximately 18 years previous. It does not attribute the reduction to gun control.

I had hear on the TV some stories about parts of NYC, like in the Greenwich Village area.

BronyMedic:cameroncrazy1984: Shoot, this goes all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. That worked out so well, right?

To be fair, moonshine is freakin' awesome. I could understand rebelling for the right to drink tax free. It's a God given, basic right that all of FARK should defend with their lives.

Infernalist: Nah, see, this is pure damage control. They 'have' to maintain their stance of 'persecuted victims' because then they don't have to explain how this is acceptable for our society to simply have to deal with on a daily basis.

Our society is saturated with small, easily hidden, easily carried tools meant only to kill other people. And then we have the balls to act surprised with unbalanced people get a hold of some and kill people.

I'm surprised that more people don't have that shill ignored.

What amazes me is that some people are allowed to talk about their ignore list and others are not... It's almost like favoritism or something.

Infernalist:Scerpes: Infernalist: You'd be surprised what you can kill someone with. That doesn't make any of them equivalent to tools designed solely and purely with death in mind. Handguns have NO other purpose except to exert the fear of death or deal death.

If you loan someone a gun, then yeah, you ARE responsible for what they do with the tool of death that you gave them.

Equally responsible, at that.

Then it is absolutely the same for cars, hammers, chain saws, and any other deadly or dangerous weapon. Whether you like it or not.

If I loan someone my hammer, a tool of construction and creation, then I can safely assume that he's meaning to use it for some sort of construction.

If I loan someone my car, a tool of transportation, then I can safely assume that he's needing it to drive somewhere.

If I loan someone my gun, a tool of death and intimidation, then I can assume that he's intending to threaten someone or kill someone.

Do you understand the concept of 'design intent'?

Right. How could you possibly assume that the guy you loaned your gun to is going hunting, or that he wants to defend his home. That couldn't possibly be what he's going to do with it because all guns are bad, bad, bad.

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns. How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns. Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line: The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

chuckufarlie:Mr. Eugenides: chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: czei: I get it: gun violence is caused by liberals working for Obama has part of a grand conspiracy to take away our guns?

I don't know that they're working for Obama or are working to take away our guns, but yeah, I doubt any of the recent mass shooters were registered as Republicans. In fact, a fair number of them (Side show bob and Loughner) seem to have been Democratic activists of sorts.

right, the kid's mother was a survivalist. How many survivalists do you think are Democrats? The kid grew up in a Republican household.

The idea that these maniacs are working to take away your guns is incredibly stupid. They do not have a political agenda, they are pissed and want to take it out on people.

You should go find a mental health professional and have a nice long talk. They cannot cure stupid, but they can help with the crazy.

Interesting; you make some fatuous leaps and then insult me without providing a shred of corroboration for your assertions. But somehow you're actually proud of your skill at debate aren't you?

this is not a debate, you moron. You are either crazy or stupid, possibly and more likely you are both, You post is proof of it.

I don't own guns to fight the government. I own guns because they're fun to shoot, and where I'm at, I'm much less likely to have a cop show up should I need one before I'm dead than I am to have a cop save my ass. I hunt, I shoot competitively, and I occasionally work security.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Besides, the first rule of war if it came to it: Kill the enemy, take his weapons, and use his supply lines against him.

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns. How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns. Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line: The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

You must be some kind of troll to post such contradictions, in clear text, for all the world to read and laugh at.

Ever think maybe you SHOULD feel bad about this? Maybe that's why you're so offended and threatened by it.

If you think that's the case, you're farking retarded. Like extra chromosome-having retarded. Or just being willfully obtuse. I'm absolutely willing to discuss reasonable legislation and solutions to lower the homicide rate. Said solutions have to be practical, enforceable, comply with the Second Amendment, and actually show a measurable impact or they need to be removed. I've said this in the last few threads.

What I will mock, however, are idiots who aren't inclined to actually use statistics, logic, or reason. And that arsehole qualifies as all of those.

The occasional civilian massacre is the price we all pay -- and will continue to pay -- for freedom.

If you are serious, may your loved ones be the next to be sacrificed. We will all cheer their patriotic act.

Anybody who believes that guns in the hands of a bunch of civilians is what protects our freedom is incredibly stupid. In fact, you are far from it. Your NRA wants to put armed guards everywhere. Do you think that people are going to believe that they are free with a bunch of NRA rednecks walking the streets, fully armed?

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns. How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns. Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line: The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

If you did not mean banning ALL guns, then why use the little old lady example?

chuckufarlie:david_gaithersburg: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link

You are living under three false impressions:

1. You are NOT the protector of American Freedom2. You will NOT gain the support of the American people when you act.3. You would get your collective asses kicked so hard by the FBI or the DoD. You have no chance against them.

While we are debating taking guns away from crazy people, we should include taking them away from stupid people. Take your guns to your local police force and turn them in. We would all feel safer if you did.

.

wut? Are you responding to the wrong comment, or are you really this stupid. I'm talking about what may happen tomorrow, 50, or 200 years from now.

Feel free to run off to some other country and be a slave to their government. Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

Scerpes:Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: You'd be surprised what you can kill someone with. That doesn't make any of them equivalent to tools designed solely and purely with death in mind. Handguns have NO other purpose except to exert the fear of death or deal death.

If you loan someone a gun, then yeah, you ARE responsible for what they do with the tool of death that you gave them.

Equally responsible, at that.

Then it is absolutely the same for cars, hammers, chain saws, and any other deadly or dangerous weapon. Whether you like it or not.

If I loan someone my hammer, a tool of construction and creation, then I can safely assume that he's meaning to use it for some sort of construction.

If I loan someone my car, a tool of transportation, then I can safely assume that he's needing it to drive somewhere.

If I loan someone my gun, a tool of death and intimidation, then I can assume that he's intending to threaten someone or kill someone.

Do you understand the concept of 'design intent'?

Right. How could you possibly assume that the guy you loaned your gun to is going hunting, or that he wants to defend his home. That couldn't possibly be what he's going to do with it because all guns are bad, bad, bad.

Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns. How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns. Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line: The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

You must be some kind of troll to post such contradictions, in clear text, for all the world to read and laugh at.

Natsumi:I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...What is it with people and guns in America? Really?I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

Most have us who have guns have one or maybe two that we picked up during a time when we felt we needed protection for one concrete reason or another, or we are hunters who have a long gun or two for that purpose.

The ones you hear about have very small genitalia, or have self esteem or respect issues of some other origin they are compensating for. The are lots and lots of the latter type in this thread.

The problem is that you are expecting a guy that stands there day after day after day for years on end in the most boring job ever, to go from most boring job ever to full on expert marksman against pumped up crazies in a fraction of a second with no warning. Just does not happen.

I also think we should utilize military personnel to guard our schools and equip 'em w/ the firepower necessary and make use of "panic buttons" that could employ them on scene asap.

Columbine guards didn't even know what was going down til it was far too late.

ronaprhys:lordjupiter: And you're a one-trick pony with your MADD whargarble.

Ever think maybe you SHOULD feel bad about this? Maybe that's why you're so offended and threatened by it.

If you think that's the case, you're farking retarded. Like extra chromosome-having retarded. Or just being willfully obtuse. I'm absolutely willing to discuss reasonable legislation and solutions to lower the homicide rate. Said solutions have to be practical, enforceable, comply with the Second Amendment, and actually show a measurable impact or they need to be removed. I've said this in the last few threads.

What I will mock, however, are idiots who aren't inclined to actually use statistics, logic, or reason. And that arsehole qualifies as all of those.

It seems we have different definitions of those things.

None of your rationalizations change what I said, which is that you characterize anything that might make you feel bad as MADD tactics; which, even if assumed to be true, for some reason is supposed to be an insult.

I don't think you ever answered my question the other day about whether or not you think drunk driving is OK. You gave some nonsensical response about 0% BAC or something, which I guess is possibly indicative of some belief that you have a special ability to drive after drinking more than other people, or something. Still not sure what your hangup is. Not that it makes one bit of difference because IT IS YET ANOTHER DISTRACTION.

Infernalist:Molavian: Infernalist: If I loan someone my gun, a tool of death and intimidation,

I see. You're retarded.

What do you think owning a gun is? Why do you think they have signs up in their yards and on their windows advertising the presence of armed people inside?

To intimidate thieves into going elsewhere. To make them fear for their own lives if they want to come inside.

Why do people flash guns at all? To intimidate and terrify those around them.

Why do cops carry openly? Intimidation.

Why is, for many criminals, the act of showing off a gun a means of defusing a confrontation. Intimidation.

I'm explaining this in case you're a moron. If you're just wanting to throw insults, then by all means, continue.

I am pretty sure that you are the moron. Cops carry guns because they might need them. The fact that so many of them have had to use them should tell even you that intimidation is not the reason.

You show people a gun to make them more afraid of you than you are of them. You are obviously scared shiatless. It must be pure hell to live in constant fear of everybody, to realize that they only thing you can do to convince people that you are a man is by showing them a gun. If we take away your guns, you would more than likely go hide in a hole, cowering in feat.

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns. How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns. Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line: The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

You must be some kind of troll to post such contradictions, in clear text, for all the world to read and laugh at.

little girls call people trolls

Thanks for saving me the time of having to figure out your motivations.

chuckufarlie:Infernalist: Molavian: Infernalist: If I loan someone my gun, a tool of death and intimidation,

I see. You're retarded.

What do you think owning a gun is? Why do you think they have signs up in their yards and on their windows advertising the presence of armed people inside?

To intimidate thieves into going elsewhere. To make them fear for their own lives if they want to come inside.

Why do people flash guns at all? To intimidate and terrify those around them.

Why do cops carry openly? Intimidation.

Why is, for many criminals, the act of showing off a gun a means of defusing a confrontation. Intimidation.

I'm explaining this in case you're a moron. If you're just wanting to throw insults, then by all means, continue.

I am pretty sure that you are the moron. Cops carry guns because they might need them. The fact that so many of them have had to use them should tell even you that intimidation is not the reason.

You show people a gun to make them more afraid of you than you are of them. You are obviously scared shiatless. It must be pure hell to live in constant fear of everybody, to realize that they only thing you can do to convince people that you are a man is by showing them a gun. If we take away your guns, you would more than likely go hide in a hole, cowering in feat.

Bontesla:computerguyUT: Bontesla: computerguyUT: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...What is it with people and guns in America? Really?I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

It's being overblown by the media.Yesterday somehow 319,999,999 people managed to not shoot anybody.

So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know.

That's amazing how you took what I wrote and turned it into what I really mean for me jackhole.

You guys spout "take them all away" like that would solve anything since it's not law abiding gun owners that are going nutjob.Where's your real solution? It's so much easier to just spout crap and rhetoric in funny redneck misspelled words and make funny DEHURRRR sounds. Just makes you feel so superior doesn't it.This country is in the situation it is currently is because we are building a structure that panders to the lowest common denominator.The problem is there are just too damn many ways for the .0001% to go apeshiat.

Where does it end? passing laws does not affect criminals. I don't know how else to phrase it so you guy can undertand it.Every gun I own is locked in a safe. If the Gestapo were to come by and take them all, what would that have accomplished?I have managed to go 45 years without losing one and without shooting someone.Why is the viloent .0001% more important than me?

When I said, "So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know", I only needed to deduce that from your statement that x number of people managed not to shoot anyone today. Your argument only makes sense if you establish an acceptable threshold of unnecessary gun violence. If you don't think any number of unnecessary shootings are acceptable then that would be a really odd statement for you to make.

Further - law abiding gun owners also snap. Here's the thing about law-abiding gun own ...

Fair enough, sorry, it's just a very sore subject to me.People that believe they can control criminals by penalizing law abiding citizens really drive me crazy.I AM all for more responsibility of the gun owner, they need to be secured, that's a given, but so much of this argument has nothing to do with guns.Gun deaths in the US don't even make the top 20 causes of death.You can't penalize someone for something they "might" do.If you're going to do that then just start writing prostitution tickets to all females in the US, because they could become prostitutes at any moment... (I know ridiculous and weak, but you get my point)There is a solution here, but it's going to have to be multi faceted and it does not have to continue to inringe on the constitution.I just wish more logic would make it into these discussions and less emotion and rhetoric.

I have an Uncle who is a fire fighter in a crappy border town and he has been telling stories of people shooting at firefighyers when they respond to fires for decades. Not that this justifies it just saying it isnt a new thing.

cameroncrazy1984:Aw, is the troll getting angry? Then why are they called "laws"?

They aren't law any more. Nobody is obligated to follow them. Those who wish to obey God will honour them, but only in the sense of following instructions, not upholding them as a body of Law.

That being said, you can fully observe and fulfill the ten commandments, but not have an ounce of actual morality guiding you. The overt act of not bearing false witness does not imply personal honesty and integrity.

And no, I wasn't getting angry or insulting you. I was merely commenting on your observed intellect and mental state. Unless, of course, you actually do believe that morality can be legislated.

chuckufarlie:Mr. Eugenides: chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: czei: I get it: gun violence is caused by liberals working for Obama has part of a grand conspiracy to take away our guns?

I don't know that they're working for Obama or are working to take away our guns, but yeah, I doubt any of the recent mass shooters were registered as Republicans. In fact, a fair number of them (Side show bob and Loughner) seem to have been Democratic activists of sorts.

right, the kid's mother was a survivalist. How many survivalists do you think are Democrats? The kid grew up in a Republican household.

The idea that these maniacs are working to take away your guns is incredibly stupid. They do not have a political agenda, they are pissed and want to take it out on people.

You should go find a mental health professional and have a nice long talk. They cannot cure stupid, but they can help with the crazy.

Interesting; you make some fatuous leaps and then insult me without providing a shred of corroboration for your assertions. But somehow you're actually proud of your skill at debate aren't you?

this is not a debate, you moron. You are either crazy or stupid, possibly and more likely you are both, You post is proof of it.

Buddy, you are so worked up that your typing and spelling has broken down. That's like waving the white flag in an internet argument. Everyone who reads this knows you lost, and that you lost so badly that you are agitated.

Cause it's inconvenient to ask the criminal to nicely hold on while i retrieve my sidearm from under my clothing? That and it's a real pain in the ass to hide my fire arm while my shirt is tucked into my pants under a really heavy belt holding the rest of my crap... If only someone thought of a way to carry my fire arm that wasn't a pain in the ass, was readily available to use and didn't force to me undress when I wanted it.. Oh wait, they did!